Standing Committee D

[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]

London Olympics Bill

Ordered, 
That— 
(1) during proceedings on the London Olympics Bill, in addition to its first meeting on Thursday 13th October at 9.30 am, the Standing Committee shall meet on Thursday 13th October at 2.00 pm, on Tuesday 18th October at 10.30 am and 4.00 pm and on Thursday 20th October at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm; 
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 20th October: Clause 39; Clauses 1 to 3; Schedule 1; Clauses 4 to 30; Schedule 2; Clause 31; Schedule 3; Clauses 32 to 38; Remaining proceedings on the Bill.

Clause 39 - Short title

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 26, line 6, after 'Olympics', insert 'and Paralympics'.
We are obviously going to make great progress, which I am sure the whole Committee is delighted about, so I shall not detain hon. Members long on this amendment. The Committee will be aware that the long title of the Bill refers, quite properly, to the Olympic games and the Paralympic games. All Members of the House have been at great pains to remind the entire country not only that this country is the home of the Paralympic games, but that what we won in that wonderful victory in Singapore a few months ago was the right to put on the best ever Olympic games and the best ever Paralympic games. It would be a huge pity if the short title of the Bill did not refer to the Paralympic games in addition to the Olympic games. 
It is worth recalling the press release that Lord Coe issued on 29 August about the phenomenal success that occurred in Singapore. I am sure that the whole Committee would wish to congratulate him and his team on the amazing work that they did in securing the games, which will be of great benefit to all parts of the United Kingdom, not only London. In the press release, Lord Coe says: 
''We won our bid as one bid for both the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games.''
Lord Coe says that; the long title of the Bill says it; it would be appropriate if the short title of the Bill said it as well.

Hugh Robertson: We simply want to add our very strong support to the amendment, which we co-signed with the Liberals. I think that everyone in the Committee would agree that Paralympic sport has been moving up the sporting agenda considerably in recent years. It was a key part of winning the bid in Singapore and it would be  entirely appropriate if that was recorded as part of the Bill. I would be amazed if anyone disagreed with that.

Richard Caborn: First, I apologise slightly because I got in at 3 o'clock this morning after coming back from Manchester following a great victory by England over Poland and I have not followed my speaking notes as I should have done. I should have welcomed you to the Chair, Mr. Hood. The proceedings have moved on quite quickly, but could I welcome you to the Chair now, and Mr. Amess as well?
As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, we are here this morning because of the support from both Opposition parties. That is why I hope that the proceedings over the next few weeks will deal only with detail rather than with principle. We have had an incredibly good dialogue. The reason why we are here with a Bill that is pretty sound now is that we did a lot of work before 6 July, when we won the games, which has put us in a good position to move the proceedings forward. 
On amendment No. 64 and the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, one of the things that we put very forcefully in our bid was that the Paralympics were coming home, because 1948, when the Olympics took place in London, was, many say, the origin of the Paralympics. I therefore agree in principle with what the hon. Gentleman said. If he withdraws the amendment, I will ensure that it comes back on Report. The lawyers want to look at it, as always, but I am sure that we will not deviate from the words in the amendment. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it. We will bring it back on Report.

Don Foster: Now that the Minister has taken the opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood, may I, too, say that I look forward to serving under your chairmanship and that of your co-Chairman?
The amendment is simple. I have some difficulty in understanding why the Minister feels the need to go away and think about adding the words ''and Paralympics'', and then to come back with an amendment of his own—especially as I suspect that it is likely to be worded in a very similar vein, because I have considerable difficulty imagining how it could be otherwise. 
Nevertheless, I wish to act in keeping with the spirit of these proceedings, and I take into account the need to ensure that the wording is absolutely correct and that parliamentary counsel have given their full approval so that the Minister can claim great credit for putting forward a Government amendment referring to the Paralympics—we well understand how these things work. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jimmy Hood: The Minister's brevity caught me out. However, I want to remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with this Bill, and that copies of it are available in the Room. I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given  of amendments. I and my co-Chair do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that might be reached during an afternoon sitting.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 - Interpretation of principal terms

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 15, at end insert
', and 
(h) ''sustainable development'' means development that will strive to incorporate— 
(i) low carbon emissions; 
(ii) low waste; 
(iii) the provision of sustainable transport; 
(iv) the use of local and sustainable materials; 
(v) the use of local and sustainable food; 
(vi) the use of a local and sustainable workforce; 
(vii) low water demand; 
(viii) the conservation and enhancement of natural habitats and wildlife; 
(ix) local heritage and contemporary culture; 
(x) the principles of equality and fair trade; 
(xi) the promotion of health and well being; 
(xii) low energy demand.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 5, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
'(ba) to achieving sustainable development,'.

Don Foster: Again, I hope not to detain the Committee for long. Members are aware of the clear commitment made by the bid team, in putting together the bid for the 2012 Olympics, to ensure that the games are in all respects developed in a sustainable way. The team produced an extremely good document ''Towards a One Planet Olympics'', which clearly sets out its intention to ensure that it provides the first sustainable Olympic games and Paralympics. Indeed, that was a fundamental objective of the Olympic movement, through Agenda 21 and ''Sport for Sustainable Development''.
Unfortunately, although that was made a high priority in our bid document, the Bill reflects little of the zeal that underpinned that aspect of the bid that we took to Singapore. There is little mention of sustainable development, and that term is not defined in the Bill. Therefore, I thought it would be helpful to give the Minister the opportunity to tell us a little more about sustainable development and how he foresees it fitting into our future plans for the delivery of the 2012 games. That is why I tabled these amendments, with some definitions of sustainability that he may wish to discuss and suggest some changes to. 
I should make it clear where the definitions in the amendments come from. They are largely based on the ''One Planet Living'' document, a set of benchmarks produced by World Wide Fund for Nature and some other organisations. Along with those that they produced, in these amendments two further  benchmarks are proposed: low energy demand, which would, of course, be over and beyond the low carbon emission aims that we already have; and the use of a local and sustainable work force. 
There are a number of other issues that we could discuss in some detail if the Minister were interested in doing so, but I think that he and Committee members are well aware that sustainable development is a key element in the planning for, and delivery of, the games. By these amendments we have given an opportunity for sustainable development to be given a higher priority than it has in the Bill. I hope that they will be supported by the Minister, at least in principle, if not in their full detail.

Hugh Robertson: I start by apologising for not welcoming you to the Chair in my opening remarks, Mr. Hood. I was slightly caught out by the brevity of the Minister's initial remarks in moving the motion formally.
It is fair to say that our party has three key objectives in this Olympic process. The first, which I suspect is shared by many Committee members, is that we want the maximum benefit from the games devolved to sport generically—right across the sporting spectrum. The second is that we are keen that the tax from the Olympic lottery games benefits sport. That will also not surprise anybody. The third is that we want to ensure that things run to budget and do not overrun to the detriment of London council tax payers. 
I am entirely behind the spirit of the Liberal Democrat amendment. However, before I supported it, I would want assurances that it would not add a considerable bill to the games that would fall to London council tax payers. It is right that council tax payers in London—the host city—should pay as they are doing at the moment, but I do not want them to be saddled with an open-ended and fairly lengthy commitment to pay off any cost overruns afterwards. The key aspect is that we agree with the spirit of what is being said, but before we supported it we would want assurances that a huge cost would not be involved.

Richard Caborn: Many would have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Bath, but we have covered them in the Bill and in Olympic delivery authority's responsibilities.
Amendment No. 30 would include a definition of sustainable development in clause 1 of the Bill, which sets out its principal terms. Clause 4 requires the ODA to contribute to sustainable development when carrying out its functions, which is vital to ensure that we leave the lasting legacy after 2012. There has been a lengthy debate on that. However, I do not accept that we need a definition of sustainable development in clause 1 for two reasons. 
The first is because the UK strategy on sustainable development ''Securing the Future'' provides the main source of guidance on the meaning of sustainable development. Secondly, similar legislation that imposes sustainable development duties on public bodies, such as the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, does not provide a definition of sustainable  development. Therefore, I do not propose to have one in this Bill and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. 
Amendment No. 14 would include a specific reference to sustainable development in clause 5. We do not think that that is necessary. Clause 4 already puts the ODA under a general duty to contribute to sustainable development in exercising all its functions. Clause 5(5)(e) requires it to have a regard, in discharging planning functions, to local authorities' development plans, which must also contribute to sustainable development. It will not be able to ignore sustainable development considerations in discharging its planning functions. 
Moreover, the balance to be struck between economic, social, resource and the environmental aspect in any particular case will vary. I think that was a point to which the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) referred. There might be occasions when an optimum balance cannot be struck but it is nevertheless appropriate to grant permission. 
Clause 5 puts the ODA in exactly the same position as local authorities. Statutory requirements in relation to sustainable development in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 apply to the plan-making function and not to development control decision making. The ODA will have only the development control function. As far as this Government are concerned, sustainable development is not a bolt-on; it is substantial part of the policy making. It applies to RDAs and to the ODA as well. Given that reassurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: Will the Minister bring us up to speed with the arrangements in respect of the Thames gateway development corporation? When in operation, it will have major responsibilities for driving forward the Government's sustainable communities agenda in the area. At present, it has not yet been set up, but it will clearly have a role to play in delivering sustainability.

Richard Caborn: I am absolutely in favour of the corporation. I was involved in its resurrection back in 1997. As the hon. Gentleman knows, during the period from then until 1999 we set up the regional development agencies. The South East England Development Agency, the Eastern Development Agency and the London Development Agency were involved in such matters. What I have said about the ODA is applicable in respect of the Thames gateway development corporation and will be entitled to sustainability under ''Securing the Future''.

Don Foster: I thank the Minister for his response. I am grateful to him for placing firmly on the record the importance of sustainable development in driving forward all the activities of the ODA and the other bodies that will be responsible for delivering the games in 2012. He will be well aware that we have held several such debates in Committee when I argued that  it was helpful of the Minister to put forward such proposals, but given that there is support from the Government, why was it not possible to put such policies into the Bill?
Clause 5 sets out provisions applying to the ODA and lists some specific requirements. However, one crucial requirement is not listed. I have heard no objection from the Government to make sustainable development a requirement of the ODA's functions. Indeed, the Minister has put such proposals firmly on the record. We know that Lord Coe and the bid team have made an absolute commitment to such matters. More recently, that commitment has been re-established in several press releases that have been issued by the organising committee. Having received such assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - The Olympic Delivery Authority

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 27, line 7, after 'London,' insert
'and the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 27, line 27, after 'London', insert
'and the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'. 
No. 27, in page 28, line 8, at end insert 
', and 
(c) the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'. 
No. 28, in page 28, line 14, after 'London', insert 
'and the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'. 
No. 29, in page 30, line 6, at end insert 
', and 
(c) the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'. 
No. 24, in clause 7, page 5, line 44, after 'London,', insert— 
'(aa) the Chairman of the London Organising Committee,'.

Don Foster: We see from the Bill that several bodies are to be established to ensure the delivery of the games in 2012. In fact, given that a complex matrix of organisations and bodies will be playing a range of different roles, communication and consultation among them will clearly be important. Several areas of consultation are referred to specifically under clauses 2, 8 and 18, such as the Secretary of State having to consult the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games when changing Olympic documents, the Olympic transport plan or making regulations in respect of advertising.
However, it seems slightly odd that there is no requirement in other areas to consult the body whose involvement in key decision making will be critical to the delivery of a successful games. We are proposing in this series of amendments that in key decisions about the operation of the ODA—such as appointments,  dismissals, and the dissolution of the ODA—the London Organising Committee, or LOCOG, be consulted. It is odd that there are requirements for consultation in respect of some decisions, and no requirements for others. As the Committee has already seen, I am a generous man and I am sure that if the Minister were to tell the Committee that consultation would take place on all the matters to which I have referred, and put it firmly on the record, I am sure that that would suffice. That would help the Committee to get on with other equally important business. I look with anticipation to the Minister giving me that assurance, so that we can continue the rapid progress that we have begun this morning.

Hugh Robertson: I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment. As everybody on the Committee knows, there are four key players in the process: the chairman of LOCOG, the chairman of the British Olympic Association, the Secretary of State, and the Mayor of London. It is one of the ironies of the process that all but the chairman of LOCOG come up for re-election at some stage between our winning the bid and the games in 2012. As he is the one constant in the process, it would seem eminently sensible to ensure that he is as closely involved with it as possible. The second reason is that he is responsible for the games to the International Olympic Committee. For those two reasons, we are keen to support the amendment.

Richard Caborn: In my usual generosity, I have put together a little diagram that I think will be extremely useful in explaining the structure, and I will pass copies around. I am very pleased, and I shall tell the Committee why. As we were going in to the Olympic Committee, it was well known that there was a lot of discussion on the lines of ''Do we, don't we?'' The Secretary of State and I, and others, went round the world asking a simple question of those cities that had run the games: it was, ''What would you have done differently if you were to do it again?'' I went to Sydney, Munich, Moscow, Athens, Beijing—obviously—and Barcelona. They were very generous, honest and frank with their advice. I say that because it became patently obvious to us that in order to run such a seven or nine-year project, three sets of skills are required. One set of skills is needed to win the games; one to deliver the big construction projects; and another to deliver the games themselves. We did incredibly well in putting those skills sets together to deliver the highly successful result on 6 July. We now have a structure that delivers the other two skill sets, with the accountability of the three main stakeholders, the BOA, the Mayor and the Government. That is the over-arching stakeholder, but there is also the ODA.
As I have told the Committee, the advert for the ODA chair and chief executive went out, and we are looking for the best in the world. There were in excess of 27,000 hits on the website. I have forgotten how many people actually downloaded the application form, but it ran into thousands. That showed to us that this will be the most prestigious construction programme, if not in the world, then definitely in Europe. It will rank bigger even than terminal 5. We are looking to put skills sets together that will be  second to none, and that will deliver this type of project over a period of five, six or seven years. The guts of what we are talking about in this Bill is setting up the ODA. LOCOG, under the very able chairmanship of Lord Coe, and backed up by Keith Mills, as can be seen on the diagram, will deliver the games on behalf of the IOC. I gave the diagram to the Committee because it explains the structure in a way that words cannot. I hope that the Committee will acknowledge that. It is quite unique in Olympic delivery to have been able to deliver those three skills sets in a managed way. In Sydney the chief executive was changed about four times. The changes were to enable different people to do certain things at certain times. I do not know how many times they changed in Athens, but some would say that the construction side was not run quite as efficiently as it was in Sydney. Sydney was a slightly better model for us to look at. 
 These amendments all relate to important matters of governance and accountability. The ODA will be an executive non-departmental public body spending large amounts of public money and there must be a clear and direct line of accountability to the Secretary of State in those areas. We have given the Mayor of London consultation rights relating to appointments to the ODA, directions issued to it and its eventual dissolution. That is perfectly right, as the Mayor will be supplying a significant portion of the funding through a council tax precept. But we do not think the same rights should be given to the LOCOG chair. 
It is right that the chair of LOCOG has a role in the overall governance of the Olympic project, through the Olympic Board. But the LOCOG chair should not have any supervisory role over the ODA chair. The two will do different but complementary jobs. LOCOG is involved informally through the Olympic board. That route of setting the main policy structure of the board is important. That is where the LOCOG chair will have an influence in a broad sense on the policy directions of the ODA. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will withdraw the amendment.

Don Foster: Not quite that easily, Mr. Hood. I congratulate the Minister on his lesson to the Committee. It is rare that a Minister uses visual aids to help explain things. He said the diagram provided a better explanation than words alone. I congratulate him; he clearly knows the structure. Many of his officials have helped the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and me to understand the full details. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the component parts of this complex matrix and how they will operate. I do not know whether he is right that it is unique to deliver these three skills sets in a managed way. Time will tell whether it will work. I am pretty confident that it will. I think that we have probably got the right structure together.
The Minister's explanation of how it will all work was fine and dandy, but he did not explain his objections to the amendments. The amendments state that the Secretary of State shall consult the relevant bodies on decisions in which they quite understandably have some interest. The Minister has  not said—I got that wrong—that the Bill requires consultation on some issues. So clearly it is important to have it on the face of the Bill. Yet he has not told me why the other important areas I mentioned cannot equally be in the Bill. Could the Minister have another go at trying to convince me that I should continue to be helpful? I am sure that the Committee would find it useful to have a clear explanation of why those issues should not be on the face of the Bill.

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is very generous. It is because he is a politician rather than a business man that he asks those questions. One of the things that we are told very clearly is the role of politicians in this structure and how they are consulted. We have responsibilities to this House. The diagram shows the role of politicians. When we went around the world we listened to many people. We asked about the role of politicians and at what stage a politician is given that responsibility to deliver the project. We have to be very careful. Many lessons have been learned—I have learned many as a Minister since 1997—about what politicians ought and ought not get involved in. Littered even across this great capital of ours are little things called Wembley, Picketts Lock, the Dome—

Jacqui Lait: Crystal Palace.

Richard Caborn: Crystal Palace—although we have also been very successful.
You and I, Mr. Hood, are good engineers; you were a mining engineer and I was a mechanical engineer. We know clearly the lines of command and how we can draw that critical path from time to time. I say to the hon. Gentleman in response to the questions that he has put to challenge me that there is, as I said very clearly, a division of responsibility—what is right for Parliament, for the Government and for politicians. We want these games to be delivered successfully, and all the experience that we have gained from going around the world is embodied in this structure. 
The answer to the questions that he probes in his amendments is clear, and I am giving it. There is a clear division of responsibility on where we are as politicians and how we want to deliver this bid. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he would serve no useful purpose in pursuing the amendments.

Don Foster: The Minister is not doing too well. I do not know whether he has taken the time to look at the amendments in any detail. I shall consider amendment No. 25, which refers to schedule 1, page 27, line 15, and says
''after 'London,' insert 'and the Chairman of the London Organising Committee'.''
Let us have a look at the very first part of that schedule. It is about the constitution of the Olympic delivery authority. It states: 
''The Secretary of State shall, having consulted the Mayor of London . . . appoint the members of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and . . . appoint one of the members as Chairman.''
The Minister gave us an answer a few moments ago. He said that there were various areas that politicians should stay out of and should not get involved in. He gave a number of examples of complete disasters that had taken place under his watch in government, although I accept that the Government perhaps do not share much of the blame for them. However, he gave us examples of development projects, major capital projects and so on. He may be right to say that it is appropriate for politicians to keep their noses out. However, the schedule states: 
''The Secretary of State shall, having consulted the Mayor of London''—
a politician—do various things. That is one of many examples that I could give. If it is already acknowledged in the Bill that one politician will be consulted by another—that the Secretary of State will consult the Mayor of London—I see no reason why the chairman of LOCOG should not also be included. The Minister's argument about politicians staying out is, frankly, totally irrelevant.

Richard Caborn: The LOCOG chairman is on the main Olympic board—which will set the policy and take the main decisions—and will therefore be consulted indirectly. The hon. Gentleman is dancing on a pinhead and being pedantic. The power structure is there; it is kept to an absolute minimum but will be effective. The hon. Gentleman is pulling his hair out; he normally does that in Committee anyway, but not usually so much during the first sitting. The fact that he is getting frustrated with my answers already is not a very good omen.

Don Foster: The Minister says that it is not a good opening, but we have already had successes in a short time.
The Minister really cannot have this. He is the one who, very generously—I pay tribute to him and thank him for it—provided us with the documents.

Richard Caborn: I wish I had not now.

Don Foster: Well, the Minister may regret doing so. He says that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to consult the chairman of LOCOG because—I am pointing at the diagram—the chairman is in this little arc thing right at the top of the document, so he is on the board. If that is a good reason why there need not be provision for consultation with the Secretary of State in the Bill, can the Minister explain why, according to the Bill, one of the other members of the committee, the Mayor, is to be consulted? That does not make sense. We should take them both out or put them both in, not leave one in and one out. [Interruption.] Has the Minister now had time to read his note?

Richard Caborn: I have.

Don Foster: Good; I have been waiting.

Richard Caborn: The officials have not added much to what I have already said, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know what is in the note, I will read it out. It might actually explain things in words of one syllable.

Hugh Robertson: Perhaps I can help. The document with which the Minister has kindly provided us says clearly that the Olympic board will provide 
''strategic coordination and monitoring of the whole Olympic project''.
If the chairman of LOCOG was on that board and there was an issue that he wanted raised, the very fact that he wanted it raised would be sufficient to ensure that it was on the board's agenda, so there is nothing in this whole Olympic project that the chairman could not get discussed by the board. Provided that we have that assurance from the Minister, I will be perfectly happy.

Richard Caborn: That is absolutely right. That tripartite partnership is how the bid was won; it is that partnership, and the honesty between those partners, that did it, and I do not see that altering at all in future in respect of the Olympic delivery authority.
For the record, the hon. Member for Bath and I have served on a number of Committees together, and I know that from time to time he consults Mrs. Foster in Bath. He ought to consult her on this occasion, to give clarity of purpose and argument to what he is saying. 
We are talking about the membership of the government of the ODA—that is what the amendment is about—and appointments and directions. The Mayor is consulted as a funder; there is direct responsibility in terms of funding. LOCOG is not a funder, so it is not specifically committed in these areas. On other matters, as the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent said, there will be wider consultation through the Olympic board. If the chairman of LOCOG wants to raise any issue to do with the governance and operation of any part of the structure, he will be at liberty to do so through the board. It can be on the wider issue of policy, or indeed on any issue that he wants to raise. 
We believe that in the structure before us the lines of command are as short as possible. There is a clear division of responsibilities—I say this very seriously—between politicians and the operations, both in terms of delivering infrastructure, and in terms of the games themselves. We think that that will pay huge dividends as we move towards 2012.

Don Foster: I shall give up, as you will be delighted to hear, Mr. Hood. We are in schoolteacher mode, with the teacher handing out his audiovisual aids and giving us a lesson on the structure of the various bodies that, I am absolutely convinced, will deliver an extremely successful Olympic games and Paralympics in 2012.
Just before I give up, perhaps I could set the Minister his homework. He eventually found a sort of answer on the appointments question raised under amendment No. 25 in my name, and I am prepared to accept his argument. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent was extremely helpful in reminding us that we did not need to include the Mayor at all, because he is already on the board—a point that I tried to make earlier. Late tonight, after the Minister has had a fantastic meal with the Queen—I look forward to joining him for that—I urge him to look at amendment No. 29. It is just another example of us trying to emphasise the importance of consulting the chairman of the organising committee. That relates to  the Secretary of State's being able to give guidance and direction, as stated in part 2 of schedule 1. 
If the Minister were prepared to have a look at that amendment, he might find that the answer he gave about the first of the amendments did not apply, and if he went through each of the subsequent amendments he would have to come up with a range of arguments to explain them. It would have been helpful if he had gone through each in turn and given an explanation in the way that he has now done for the first of them, on the assumption that at a later stage we will have an opportunity to address the relationships and consultation between the various bodies. 
At this stage of our proceedings, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 27, line 15, at end insert
'and 
(c) equality matters including disability access and inclusive design'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 8, in schedule 1, page 30, line 28, at end insert— 
'(21A) In section 49D of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (power to impose specific duties) after subsection (1) insert— 
''(1A) A public authority for the purposes of subsection (1) includes the Olympic Delivery Authority.''.'. 
No. 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 40, after 'Olympics', insert 
'including ensuring that adequate arrangements are made to ensure that premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people,'. 
No. 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 35, at end insert 
'and 
(c) contribute to social inclusion and the promotion of diversity and equality'. 
No. 4, in clause 8, page 6, line 21, at end insert 
'(including the provision of transport which is accessible for disabled people)'. 
No. 5, in clause 8, page 7, line 3, after 'plan,', insert— 
'(ja) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee,'. 
New clause 1—Grants for Accessibility Improvements— 
'The Secretary of State may make grants for the purpose of assisting any person to make improvements to highways, services, accommodation, tourist facilities, and cultural and entertainment venues which would assist disabled people in attending the London Olympics.'.

Don Foster: These are important amendments. All of them are about ensuring that we deliver a games that is truly inclusive, and that the needs of all potential participants in the Olympics and Paralympics, and all the spectators—who we hope will come in very large numbers and get involved in the excitement of the event—can be easily accommodated and provided with support.
The amendments have been tabled in an effort to ensure that the promise of an inclusive 2012 Olympics will be fulfilled, and, beyond that, that the opportunity we have to make the UK a global standard-bearer on  issues such as accessibility for disabled people is not wasted. Lord Coe said in a press release of 29 August: 
''Our vision for the London 2012 Paralympic Games is to set new standards for services, facilities and opportunities for people with a disability.
I have no doubt that our Games will be the first to be fully integrated and that London will host the best ever Paralympic Games in 2012.''
Notwithstanding the phenomenal work that has been done in the field of disability rights in recent years—I give credit to all who have been involved in that—we all know from our own experience that fine words on their own do not deliver. It has been necessary to have legislation to ensure that some of the things we all believe are necessary are delivered. That is why these amendments have been tabled. They deal with different aspects of the delivery of the games—transport, accessibility in the broad sense of that term, and the involvement of people with disabilities in the necessary decision making. There are several amendments in this group, and because they are so important I wish to take up a few minutes of the Committee's time to refer briefly to each in turn. 
On amendment No. 7, we all accept that for all aspects of the delivery of the games we need committed and high quality leadership. In respect of delivering an inclusive games, it is important that that leadership is set from the top. I welcome the fact that the National Paralympic Committee of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be represented on LOCOG—that is important—but more needs to be done to ensure adequate representation. The amendment calls on the ODA to have a general overall strategy for recruiting board members with expertise in equality legislation, inclusive design and access for disabled people. Instead of just having one person with expertise on the board, it is important for all of its members to have a degree of knowledge or expertise about such matters, and certainly to have commitment to delivering on them. Many disabled people, including Paralympians, but not only them, have much to contribute. I hope that we do everything possible to encourage them to get involved. 
Amendment No. 8 is equally important. The Disability Discrimination Act 2005, which comes into force at the end of next year, will give the ODA only a general duty to promote disability equality. However, because of the way the measures are set out, it will not be covered by a specific duty, as it is not one of the bodies listed under the relevant requirements. Those regulations were published in September 2005, before the ODA was legally constituted; we had not even reached the point it is at now. One bit of legislation that lists relevant bodies and specific duties has already come out. A new body is being created, which, understandably, is not on that list. If the ODA is covered only by the general duty, it will face the same requirements to deliver inclusive issues as a parish council, for example. It will not have to produce a disability equality scheme. 
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment. Even if he is not prepared to accept it, I hope he will give an assurance that the ODA will deliver a disability equality scheme even though it does not have a specific requirement to do so. That is important. Other aspects in the specific duties are covered in the legislation. 
Amendment No. 2 gives the ODA an explicit remit to ensure that all premises and facilities are fully accessible to disabled people for both the Olympic games and Paralympics. The same principle must be applied to the Olympic venues outside London—for instance, sailing on the Solent—and to training facilities. A specific provision in the Bill will make inclusive design a key criteria of plans and procurement policies from the outset. 
The 2012 London Olympic games and Paralympics are a historic opportunity to promote a more equal and cohesive society. We argue in amendment No. 3 that that goal should be written into the Bill. The ODA needs to promote equality of opportunity and to celebrate diversity in all its functions. No Committee member would disagree with that. The Minister may quibble with the wording, but I hope that he will not disagree with the broad thrust. 
Amendment No. 4 relates to transportation. We all know that tremendous work will have to be done to fulfil the transport needs of the Olympic games and Paralympics. Vast amounts of money, time, energy and effort will go into it. That is important. It gives us a golden opportunity to ensure that while that work is going on we dismantle, as far as is humanly possible, the major transport barriers that disabled people currently face in seeking to participate in life in our capital city. The achievements of an accessible and seamless transport system for the games will be clearly be important. I seek to ensure that access is clearly included in the Bill. 
 I am disappointed that the reported five key objectives of the Olympic transport strategy team at Transport for London make no reference to accessibility. It has come up with a list of key priorities, and accessibility is not on it. Many people who work in London, as we all do, and who live there know that there are concerns about the failure of the transport system to cater fully for the needs of disabled people. The statistics are clear. Only 40 out of the 275 underground stations are step-free. I could go on, because there are many other concerns. We should use the opportunity to tackle some of them, not just for the Olympics but for the long-term benefit. 
Amendment No. 5 would require the ODA to consult the disabled persons transport advisory committee on the transport plan. It seems to me obvious that we should have the most knowledgeable and experienced body in the field. The amendment merely suggests that the ODA consult that expert body on these issues, and I hope that the Minister will not object to it. 
Incidentally, the proposal is consistent with the requirement on the Mayor and the Greater London Authority to consult the disabled persons transport advisory committee and other disability organisations  about the Mayor's transport plans. It is slightly odd that the Government have made it an absolute requirement that the Mayor consults the body when he develops his transport plan, but do not require the ODA to do the same when it develops its transport plan. 
As to new clause 1, in a recent survey 62 per cent. of disabled Londoners said that access to public buildings and the local environment are key priorities for change. Our ambition is for London to become one of the most accessible cities in the world, and poor access will create all sorts of problems for people who come to London and other parts of the UK for the games. I acknowledge that the new clause is little more than a probing measure, but I suggest that the Government should at least institute a planning delivery grant, or something of that type, so that local authorities are given more opportunities to employ access officers, the capacity to build local access routes and the funds to carry out street and public realm improvements that address the needs of disabled people. The games would be used to tackle that matter, as I am sure every member of the Committee would wish. 
We have tabled a long string of amendments that cover different aspects of the needs of disabled people, which include requiring them to be consulted and involved, and providing opportunities to tackle some of the issues in the public realm and on the public transport system. I hope that the amendments will get a sympathetic hearing from the Minister.

Hugh Robertson: I suspect that this is not a party political issue. I am sure that every member of the Committee and all who are involved in the wider games movement want to ensure that the London 2012 games are fully accessible to anyone with any form of  disability. It is beyond party politics; that sentiment is central to the Olympic movement and to the Bill.
The Opposition want assurances from the Minister, which I am sure he will give, that any Olympic venue, and any transport hub that serves that venue, is wholly accessible in every way to people with any form of disability and that any building that is part of the wider Olympic festival that takes place in London in 2012 is likewise covered. 
It would be inconsistent, having said that cost was a factor, to use the Olympic games to put right what has happened over centuries in London, because the London council tax payer would have to pick up the bill. However, we will be satisfied if the Minister gives us a commitment in Committee that all Olympic venues, the transport modes that serve them and the other buildings that are involved in the wider Olympic festival will meet these criteria.

Richard Caborn: I will give chapter and verse on sustainable development, I shall explain precisely our views on each of the amendments, because this is a very important part of the Bill. As I said, a major part of our bid was connected to the Paralympics. Our pitch was that London was where the first Paralympics took place in 1948, therefore they would be ''coming home''. What we have been able to do through the Paralympics and recent legislation on equality for disabled people is now being incorporated into the—

Jimmy Hood: Order.
It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o-clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing order. 
Adjourned till this day at Two o'clock.